tv [untitled] September 12, 2011 11:22pm-11:52pm PDT
before i left the department, i wrote the first draft that this legislation is based on, and i would like to think the great work of the department in making this an effective and viable piece of legislation. i hope he will support it. -- you will support it. if i could have the graphics, please? i wanted to address one aspect, maybe in answer to supervisor w iener's question. if i could have the digital projector, please? we do have a lot of data on falcons. i have a chart that will show you. supervisor mar: we're trying to get the graph. there it goes. >> thank you. this is george, a peregrine
falcon, which produced years of breeding on top of the pg&e building in san francisco. those falcons turned into adult birds within a few weeks. isr to run over on the time, but we did have a little bit of trouble -- i am sorry to run over the time. one of the problems with these peregrine falcons is learning how to fly. if they can learn to navigate the canyons and skyscrapers downtown, they have a chance of making it to adulthood. they need to learn to land, and they need to learn to avoid collisions with class. -- glass. from 2005 until 2011, here are the figures for the peregrine falcon mortality. in 2005, --
[bell] supervisor mar: please continue. >> in 2009, only one birds survive, and that is when they moved the nest. -- only one bird survived. in 2007, -- in 2008, george and gracie disappeared, and then a new set of birds moved in. all three fledglings died in building collisions, 201 mission, and in 2010, one of the four fledglings also died in a building collision. the excellent work the department has done in creating the board collision zone is great. it is a good compromise -- in creating the bird collisions --
collision zone. we would include the time that these fledglings learn. there are uv films. all of these buildings have window washing equipment, and during late may or early june, they can attach these things that cost about $1 per square foot. after the fledgling season, they can wash the wending -- the windows and remove it. these are the things that are not costly and that i hope the aia could support. the cost of glazing as a proportion of overall building cost is probably in the 4% to 5% come and adding frigid glazing to that is probably less than less than 1% in terms of the overall building. to me, it is worth it to save a
few bird lives for the additional costs. supervisor mar: 84 the data, as well. sir? >> good afternoon, supervisors -- thank you for the data, as well. sir? >> good afternoon. nothing is totally perfect the first time. reality is that we need to protect birds, not just from running into our windows and our walls but trying to do things like wind power, its center, which are also dangerous for birds -- wind power, etc., which are also dangerous for birds. i worked on a project that had fairly massive glass walls that were put in force found mitigation, for the freeway -- that were put in for sound mitigation for the freeway.
something was value engineered out, and i invite you to go there on a normal morning and look below the glass walls, and you will find birds, often being carried off by other predators. i think he indicated how much the glazing was for a building, and i have come to understand from talking to architects and suppliers that it is probably made a 10% increase in the cost of the glass itself. you still have the mechanics of putting it up, but at the end of the day, if there was a bigger demand, it would be easier to get, and it would become more cost effective, so i hope you can pass it on with affirmative action to the full board. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you.
is there anyone else who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. do any of you want to respond to the public comment? >> is there anything in particular that is of interest to the board members? >> i know that two -- supervisor mar: i know that two men were saying it was an either/or, energy efficiency versus bird safe, and then there was another point that supervisor wiener brought up. >> we're getting some information on the energy efficiency. i do not think it is an either/or option. i would like to speak also on the costs. that seemed to be a primary concern. if you look at the cost of a two-story commercial building, all made out of glass, $11
million, out of that, a fraction of the cost is the windows, about $500,000. so excluding labor, it is about $250,000. of that window cost, the glass cost is about $40,000, and then if you think according to "the new york times" the cost of the most expensive glass option, or the two most expensive glass options, it is about 1.5 times the cost of the energy- inefficient glass, a for a change in what they normally do -- energy-efficient glass, so for changing what they normally do, architects know that the construction costs vary up to 3% to 4%, based on a flux in the cost of materials.
the ornalux class, -- glass, they won an award for being the most innovative, energy- efficient new glass products, so there are evidently other folks out there who feel that this is, in fact come energy-efficient. we might be over complicating the issue a little bit. in some of the other it -- other issues, i gave them a copy of the ordinance. the simplest, least expensive option is our grandparents a solution, using little screens that keep out the bugs. those helped to make the glass visible. they also reduce fatal collisions for birds, and i do not think any project ever went bankrupt using that. another simple, common-sense answer, if you're looking at
efficiency, nothing can compete with solid walls when it comes to energy efficiency, so if you are trying to decrease bird collisions, using more traditional structure. supervisor mar: supervisor cohen had a question. supervisor cohen: i do have a question, and i do not know if it should be directed to you as the experts, but i was looking for the standard for birds safety buildings. i am curious to know how things work in new york city with the building trade buildings. >> the towers of light? supervisor cohen: yes. it is the downtown area, said there are buildings, so this is more of a curiosity. >> i do not think that is a
permanent installation but something that is noted in the commission policy document. that was one of the things that drew the issue to light is that bird researchers would noticed the birds circling in the light, and they do not know why light is so confusing to birds. it could just be that once they are in a lit area, it seems carrier to fly to an unlit area, but the world trade towers of like to draw attention to the use of light and how that affects birds. supervisor cohen: thank you, and i am very impressed that you knew the answer. a full-service board planner. supervisor mar: any other? seeing none, we have already closed public comment. i would like to offer the amendment language, and, colleagues, do you have any comments?
supervisor wiener: so, you know, i think probably there seems to be agreement that this is inappropriate in terms of doing something -- this is appropriate in terms of doing something. in reviewing the materials and listening to comments, it does seem in many ways a reasonable proposal. i will say that our development community and of the innovations like -- community and organizations like boma, they are usually not hesitant to tell us very vociferously if they have a problem with something or if this is going to cause unintended consequences, and so, frankly, when i first saw it while back this coming
out, and i thought this could be some sort of big fight, and i was waiting, waiting, waiting to hear, and we did get the letter, and i very much appreciate that, and i asked them to be prepared to discuss it, but given my review of all of this, of course as a layperson, folks that i would think would be opposed to this have been completely silent. i am prepared to support this today. we now have one week. it is important that we make good policy, and if there are folks who have something to add to this, they should certainly let us know, and from what i can tell, this sounds like an appropriate response to what i
think is a real problem, so i will be supporting it. supervisor mar: thank you. so, calis, can we support the amendment without objection -- so, colleagues? supervisor cohen: yes. supervisor mar: without objection. thank you for coming out. could we do number two? my understanding is that we did not have to do that, without objection, we are recalling number two, and can we pass that item with recommendation without objection? supervisor cohen: yes. supervisor mar: could you please call items four, 5, and six? clerk: item number four, involving the eastern neighborhoods plan. item five, . administrative code to implement the eastern neighborhood plan.
item number six, an amendment to correct technical errors in the eastern neighborhood zoning plan. supervisor mar: thank you. and i think we have a staff presentation. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. we are here to talk today about the eastern neighborhoods code cleanup. the plan was adopted in 2008. the complete ordinance included changes to the planning code, administrative code, and zoning map, legislation over 1800 pages, and some mistakes were made. over the last 2.5 years, i have been accumulating a list of these mistakes that have been identified in the course of implementing this plan, mostly by my colleagues. finally this spring, we had the ability to coordinate this into the legislation you have before you today. so there are generally two types of amendments contained in the
ordnance, including technical ones with incorrect references or otherwise unnecessarily confusing text. second, there are substantive changes when the adoptive code could be more easily amended to reflect the intent of the eastern neighborhood plan. what this ordinance does not contain is a change in policy from the eastern neighbor plant, such as new ideas that come from the west soma or others -- a change in policy from the eastern neighborhood plan. measuring how the stacks up with the plan vision. we think this will help us better address whether there are more substantive policy changes which should be recommended. since this legislation is a pot pourri and not full of substantive changes, it is not difficult to identify the
changes. my hope that what was included in the packet was helpful to the board members and public to help navigate this document and to increase the transparency of intent. that being said, i would like to call a couple of items which i think will be of more interest to the public. first, because we had to do a emailed notice for the changes, and it is very difficult to explain map changes in a post card, i received a few changes. the providence were due to the completion of the eastern neighborhood plan. basically, we took a snapshot of the eastern neighbor and probably in 2007 for a zoning map, and that means that any condominiums created in the subsequent year did not get caught in the legislation, and this action is to correct that. it will be changed to say. second is a notion of flex space. the route the eastern neighborhoods, mixed use is permitted on the ground floor -- throughout the eastern neighborhoods. there has been a lot of buzz
since the one at folsom was to include it. since this was something supported by the plan but there was no framework for it in the code, we added in section 329 for the ability of the planning commission to do this on condition that they are considered residential for purposes of applicable control. it can only be on the ground floor. there are other agencies, such as the fire department and building inspection, which can only be on main street, and there are other conditions. i think those are the two highlights. i would be happy to clarify. i also know the city attorney has proposed two amendments to be made. maybe i should try to read those into the record. ok. supervisor mar: ok, thank you so much for the presentation. there is no one in the public
anymore, so seeing no public comment, we will close public comment. so can we accept the amendments on item number four, kazakhstan without objection? -- colleagues, without objection? [gavel] thank you. can we do these one by one? is there and a motion to approve items four, 5, and six, without objection? thank you. items four, 5, and six. are there any other items before us? clerk: no, there are no other items. supervisor mar: thank you. meeting adjourned. [gavel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org
>> please turn your wringers off of your cell phones. you wish to speak, fill out a speaker card. items will appear on the board -- the september 20th agenda, unless otherwise stated. supervisor campos: could you please announced item number one. >> a performance -- supervisor campos: the question of how much the city should advertise on city property is an issue that has been discussed many times and at different times, voters in san francisco have opined on that issue. the question before us is within the confines of what city policy
is currently how are we doing in terms of performing our duties and maximizing revenue for the city? that is the reason we call this hearing and we begin by thanking the budget and legislative analysts for their great work on this. >> the morning -- good morning. i'm from the budget legislative analyst's office. we would like to give a presentation on the audit of city policies and advertising revenues. the presentation will be given by those who have worked directly on the audit. i would also like to say we started out by actually looking at the city's policies, the voter-approved policies. they do define where
advertising can and cannot occur and what the goals of the city are. as far as naming rights on candlestick park were recently revised so that naming rights came back into agreement. but yes, we did work within those parameters. just for starters, we -- the presentation. the goal was to look at the city's advertising agreement. we looked at the city policies and how they monitor in terms of the contract. this was approved in november of 2010 and we completed the audit and submitted it to the board in april of 2010.
we had for findings and 15 recommendations. the recommendations included oversight of city policies, the management of mta advertising revenues, non-transit advertising revenues. overall, we believe our recommendations would be about 1.3 million, which we will talk about later in this presentation. the city departments we covered and received responses from, the recommendations to the city administrator, rec and parks, mta, all of those have agreed partially with the decisions that impacted them, except for
mta. supervisor campos: before you proceed, i think it would be helpful for those in the audience and those who are watching, when you talk about the two instances that voters have recently shared or expressed an opinion, to simply note that. my understanding is we have one proposition, g, which was approved by voters in the march 2002 which prohibits general advertising signs or billboards on public and privately owned buildings, but does not prohibit the number of general advertisements on city-pound motor vehicles or in the public right of way, including sidewalks or streets. the second proposition was proposition e which was approved in 2009, and that prohibits an increase in the number of general advertising signs on
city-owned furniture, including transit shelters, kiosks, benches, and newspaper racks. >> that is correct. when you talk about proposition g, you will see when we go through the audit, there's one billboard that predates that. so there is one billboard with advertising. but, yes, those are the two major propositions that govern advertising. to put into context, the city received -- this is based on the full year of revenue we had during the audit, about $21 million in advertising revenue, almost two-thirds of that is mta, who has three different agreements from which they
receive revenues. one of which is from revenues on transit shelters, one of them is for vehicles, and they receive some revenues through an agreement between bart and advertising provider for the combined muni-bart station. there is an agreement with clear channel for advertising on airport property. public-works as two different agreements. they provide public toilets in exchange for being to advertise on kiosks and another that is not revenue-generating, but it is maintenance of news racks in exchange for advertising. recreation and park has an advertising agreement, they share an advertising revenues with the forty-niners and candlestick park. real-estate has a billboard talked-about on mission and the convention facilities have some advertising in the center.
all three of these have -- themta, recreation and park, at this time, there are no naming rights in the city. with that, i would like to turn this over to emily who will give the next part of the presentation. >> of good morning, supervisors. -- good morning, supervisors. i would like to give you an overview of the presentation. first, we found city departments lack consistent advertising policies and their agreements with companies. not all departments were maximizing their advertising revenues. while we recognize sfmta has increased revenues through negotiations with new advertising agreements, sfmta
does not consistently monitor advertising agreements to maximize revenue. finally, city departments have not consistently monitored and advertising companies were compliant. the first finding is in regards to city policies and uniform advertising guidelines. there is a lack of advertising guidelines to ensure that departments are complying with the city policy and requiring advertisers to me consistent standards. only sfmta and the airport have advertising standards explicitly spelled out in their agreement. for example, sfmta prohibits advertising is related to political activity, these of firearms and pornography and other prohibitions.
because the department of public works, recreation and parks department, convention facilities, and the real estate division lack formal advertising standards in their agreement, they cannot and -- they cannot assure companies understand or comply with city policies as well as general department advertising policies. we found only that airport requires approval advertisements prior to installation. sfmta requires prior approval of pilot programs and experimental advertising only. in contrast, the department of public works and recreation and parks place their responsibility of approving advertisements with the advertising companies. this is a picture of the only city-owned building with an advertisement. the real estate division assumed an advertising agret